Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:STS-135 final flyaround of ISS 1.jpg/3
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:STS-135 final flyaround of ISS 1.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2015 at 05:39:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Final fly-around of the International Space Station by the Space Shuttle. Created by NASA - uploaded by Leebrandoncremer/Craigboy - nominated by Craigboy -- Craigboy (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Craigboy (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)- Support Much wow, well detailed and exposed. --Kreuzschnabel 09:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Not everyone of us could capture such picture due to its location (in fact probably nobody), however the quality and resolution of this one is quite low. If another object or view would be captured with such quality, I don't think it would have a chance here. -- Pofka (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Imho this is a somewhat confused argument. I'm fine with opposing due to wow or stuff like that but your reason is a bit odd. Firstly, the quality is perfectly fine, shot with a slightly older pro DSLR. NASA need to rely on what the camera manufacturers offer in the rugged and reliable class and at the end of the day such cameras don't have 36 or 50 MP as of now. Also the entire point is that the image is in space, the fact that I can shoot the house next door in higher resolution is totally irrelevant, isn't it? --DXR (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- My point is that we don't have to make every NASA photo FP just because it is taken in space. Zoom in the satellite. It is unsharp and some details are really poorly visible. I'm not telling that this picture is a crap, but I think the rules should be same for all and there shouldn't be exceptions just because they don't have better cameras up there. In my opinion, it should fit perfectly as valued image, not FP. -- Pofka (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- The space station might not be highly detailed but I definitely cannot see anything unsharp or blurred in it. As for the wow factor, that’s a thing we all see different of course. Objects or places unfamiliar to us bring a wow factor along that biases us into featuring the image while others shake their heads, as I did in this nomination (buy any issue of any flying magazine, and you’ll get dozens of perfectly sharp in-flight shots, so this kind of pictures is not unfamiliar to me, so the image in question hadn’t enough wow in my eyes to compensate for the blurred wing.) Others, having a different approach from a different experience, granted the image lots of wow to support. That’s why we have majority votes here. --Kreuzschnabel 07:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- The image is of similar quality to other featured space images. It's not just some space image, it's an image of an extremely significant event (completion of USOS, final Space Shuttle mission).--Craigboy (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- My point is that we don't have to make every NASA photo FP just because it is taken in space. Zoom in the satellite. It is unsharp and some details are really poorly visible. I'm not telling that this picture is a crap, but I think the rules should be same for all and there shouldn't be exceptions just because they don't have better cameras up there. In my opinion, it should fit perfectly as valued image, not FP. -- Pofka (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Imho this is a somewhat confused argument. I'm fine with opposing due to wow or stuff like that but your reason is a bit odd. Firstly, the quality is perfectly fine, shot with a slightly older pro DSLR. NASA need to rely on what the camera manufacturers offer in the rugged and reliable class and at the end of the day such cameras don't have 36 or 50 MP as of now. Also the entire point is that the image is in space, the fact that I can shoot the house next door in higher resolution is totally irrelevant, isn't it? --DXR (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support --The technical quality of this shot is very nice. The lens is well sharp at 100% on the subject and the photograph hasn't been over-sharpened. Nikon's camera shines with no noise in the dark areas. The background has been brushed, not very nicely in some areas, to get rid of the compression artefacts. An issue which can be easily cleaned. Sting (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
